Gun Violence Task Force Calls For Research, Parental Tools
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"According to the FBI, the majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and the majority of aggravated assaults involve knives, fists, bats and other weapons aside from guns."Zachary Amaranth said:
did not take me long to find numerous discussions on it, the actual fbi pages, when they organize them better then i will dig through them.
but it is not a hard common sense thing to assume really that anything that would be more handy when people get peeved would be more commonly used in violent assaults than guns, since contrary to popular myth over across the pond apparently where we are all armed and ready to shoot each other every waking minute of every day.
fun facts.
we have a population of about 313 million people.
28,000 miles of atlantic coastline, 17,000 miles of gulf coastline, 40,000 miles pacific coastline, 2,000 miles arctic coastline for a grand total of just shy of 89,000 miles of coast.
we have about a 4,000 mile border with canada. and just shy of 2,000 mile border with mexico.
we have 50 states many are the size of your average european nation or larger in actual area. you can travel across several nations in europe in the time you cross between states here.
we can just toss out there that waving your hands and saying something is bad and making it illegal, which turns a good chunk of your former law abiding citizens into criminals overnight because you wish it so does not get rid of anything.
go research our war on drugs and the cost in lives and helping spread hatred is the USA in s america and places that we turn into war zones because of our appetites for drugs.
you want to do the math or a "cost benefit analysis" on the amount of guns and the explosion of a full blow black market in guns in this nation, how quickly those lines of marijuana and cocain distribution can easily swap out cartons of ak47s and uzis when there is enough money in it.
no you seem far more intent on dismissing any argument that dares challenge your rather limited view of issues.
and again piling more laws and more regulation and more government on top when we already have laws that made everything this guy did ILLEGAL already.......really 313 million people and 1 person shoots 26 kids in a school because he is crazy......and we have a epidemic....and we have people so riled up about this f it, lets get rid of guns they are barbaric and childish, lets get rid of videogames they are barbaric and childish murder simulators. because on the action of ONE solitary madman.
*FACEPALM*
the vast majority of gun owners in america are rational law abiding citizens that never fire a gun at another person in their entire lives, way some of you talk it is still the wild west up in here, and oddly enough these really bad shootings seem to happen in anti gun zones or states wow go figure. see how chicago fares under its anti gun environment in a pro gun nation.
Yes, although there's still the Internet (the kids often are more tech-savvy than their parents), and of course the kids can get their hands on forbidden stuff if they have friends who have parents who either don't care or have different standards.gentlemanghost said:
Of course there's also the risk that the kids come in contact with guns that way. Even if you're very careful, or don't have guns, who's to say your neighbours are the same?
We have 20+ years of solid evidence that games never have and never will cause violence, and they ask for research?
This is as fucking despicably dishonest as you can get without directly asking for it. Fucking stop banging on about the question and actually get to the part where you figure out the REAL reasons why shootings happen.
For fuck's sake.
This is as fucking despicably dishonest as you can get without directly asking for it. Fucking stop banging on about the question and actually get to the part where you figure out the REAL reasons why shootings happen.
For fuck's sake.
I'm English, and can you guess how many people were killed with guns in the city of Plymouth England this week? none! yup thats right not a sausage. Heck had to serch the net and found only one case back in October 2011, terrible still but in that case the man even lived.
So yes we may get more inventive without guns in the UK knives, kittens and the odd Ukulele hell the SAS ain't feared for nothing, but joking aside people still die! Comit suidie with other methods, i think the Tamar bridge(plymouth again) is the 3rd most popular suiside spot nation wide (but don't quote me on that) so no guns can't be blamed for all the US's worries - people can make bombs from house hold goods if they really want to cause death.
I'll get to my point now. I'm trying to say in the middle but i'll be honest I don't really like guns. The one thing i'll say is simply people have killed people since the dawn of human civilisation why and how is a matter for each case but the point is in a civil and forward thinking society all we can do is make it as hard as possible to harm another human being and guns i'm afraid to say do the exact opotiste if they're sold in freely
Its instant death(yes I know not always but more so than most methods) not a punch or a wild slash and the same logic for most suisides as they have to be planed and thought over which hopefully saves a few who get help before they can go through with it.
Life is important and even with this being blown out of proportions and becoming a witch hunt against games and movies the point stands in the long run something should be done! Not sure what as I saw a figure on how many guns are in the US in general and there is no way to retroactively get rid of them all in a day or even reduce them by any major amount without the support of the people and the US loves its guns and i'm not going to tell you what to do but remeber every life matters and saving a few by reducing deaths by guns would be nice right?
Keep well and be civil and troll away if you must i've said my quiet peace.
So yes we may get more inventive without guns in the UK knives, kittens and the odd Ukulele hell the SAS ain't feared for nothing, but joking aside people still die! Comit suidie with other methods, i think the Tamar bridge(plymouth again) is the 3rd most popular suiside spot nation wide (but don't quote me on that) so no guns can't be blamed for all the US's worries - people can make bombs from house hold goods if they really want to cause death.
I'll get to my point now. I'm trying to say in the middle but i'll be honest I don't really like guns. The one thing i'll say is simply people have killed people since the dawn of human civilisation why and how is a matter for each case but the point is in a civil and forward thinking society all we can do is make it as hard as possible to harm another human being and guns i'm afraid to say do the exact opotiste if they're sold in freely
Its instant death(yes I know not always but more so than most methods) not a punch or a wild slash and the same logic for most suisides as they have to be planed and thought over which hopefully saves a few who get help before they can go through with it.
Life is important and even with this being blown out of proportions and becoming a witch hunt against games and movies the point stands in the long run something should be done! Not sure what as I saw a figure on how many guns are in the US in general and there is no way to retroactively get rid of them all in a day or even reduce them by any major amount without the support of the people and the US loves its guns and i'm not going to tell you what to do but remeber every life matters and saving a few by reducing deaths by guns would be nice right?
Keep well and be civil and troll away if you must
i've said my quiet peace.
There's only one thing that will significantly save lives and that is a full ban on guns, all guns, even and especially handguns. That is the only way to get those stats down. But considering that a majority of Congress is Republican and another majority is in good standing with the NRA, a ban on the second amendment isn't going to happen any time soon.
This isn't a purely numerical issue. There's a moral aspect to be considered. Yes, the damage that prescription drugs do is bad, but pretty much every culture, government and religion worldwide agrees that murder is the one crime that must be avoided above all else. Not least because it concerns one individual exerting force over another against their will. And whether or not (hand)guns are legal plays a big part in that murder rate, as the U.S. exemplifies. That is why guns deserve special attention and not just because they cause a certain number of deaths.cerebus23 said:
Reaching for more control over population. The more they squeeze, the more people will slip through their fingers. And then, when the laws ban everything worth doing (they won't stop at guns, games or books... power grabs are all-or-nothing responses, like muscle contractions) then the general population will either be propagandized sheep or those on the outside fighting for freedom.
Freedom isn't just about having guns, but being allowed to make our own choices and have our own responsibilities. If we as people can't be trusted to own guns, neither should the government because THEY ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE!
Freedom isn't just about having guns, but being allowed to make our own choices and have our own responsibilities. If we as people can't be trusted to own guns, neither should the government because THEY ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE!
Too bad you were already debunked before you quoted me. And your quote doesn't back up your claim.cerebus23 said:
Wouldn't it be easier to just concede the argument, rather than doubling down on something someone else already cited as false?
It doesn't hurt that nobody's actually going to proclaim the desire to ban all guns.Farther than stars said:
I disagree with your premise, however. Banning guns is unnecessary. Well, let me rephrase. "Banning guns is not necessary to significantly save lives. Common sense gun control is sufficient to do that."
It's a shame the NRA opposes even the softest gun control, especially since their own membership supports most/all of the tenets of say, Obama's gun control policy. Whether you think Obama's gun control goes far enough, the fact is that if you propose it without Obama's name, it gets majority support in this country. Even among NRA members.
He sounds an awful lot like the pharmacological conspiracy theorists who think that big pharma is preventing us from acting on such deaths.
The biggest problem here is that we already take common sense measures with medication. It's funny that people whoare generally anti-nanny state are so concerned with drug deaths that largely come down to end-user issues. Aspirin is oe of the most quoted ones, and the reason people die from aspirin is that despite numerous warnings on all aspirin products, people take products containing aspirin like candy. Avandia was one of the big drugs that got a Congressional hearing, and the problem with it was actually a known issue: heart failure. Thing is, the heart failure issue was specifically for people doctors should have been screening out in the first place.
It's funny how nobody complains about knee-jerking with pharmaceuticals.
Pharmaceutical deaths are also accounted for by suicide, which we are supposed to ignore with firearms, and cases where the risk of death is known but considered acceptable due to the level of suffering experienced. I can't remember which arthritis drug was pulled off the market in another kneejerk, but the users of the drug protested loudly that this was a drug that gave them their lives back, and it was worth risking a shorter life span.
Which circles right back to the statement of a moral issue. So yeah, I agree, but I think there's more to it than just that. I think there's also bad mathematics and gross hypocrisy.
Edited to add: I guess part of my point here is that if firearms were regulated even half as strongly as pharmaceuticals, we might actually see some progress. Ironically, we're looking at someone who is complaining that a more heavily regulated market should be the target because...Well, ponies I assume.
To be fair, the ratings groups can be indecisive at times. XCom Enemy Unknown received a 12 from the BBFC, 16 from the USK and 18 from PEGI. Thanks guys.
No, 'common' or 'simple' assault is the most frequent violent crime.cerebus23 said:
Aggravated assault involves a weapon, simple assault does not (and is more common).
Firearms are MUCH more deadlier than cutting or bashing weapons.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/05/knives-00000/
BTW you are redefining what you said, in an attempt to make you statement appear more credible.
Funny, I have no trouble finding the data I required to rebut your argument and link you to the data.cerebus23 said:
As the saying goes, a poor workman blames his tools....
I come from a country that has a state over 4 times larger than Texas, with a population under 2 mill and over 14,000 kms of empty coastline.cerebus23 said:
It has national parks bigger than some EU countries and US states. It takes approx 2 days to drive from one end to the other (of just that one state).
So fucking what?
Actually my intent is to rebutt illogical, ill-conceived arguments with no basis in fact and no supporting evidence supplied by the poster....cerebus23 said:
And the vast majority of people who take perscription drugs will never over-dose and die from them, yet you used it as an argument against firearm controls. You can't have it both ways....cerebus23 said:
BTW Try searching those links I provided for the relationship between homicide victim and offender, they will show that over 25% of homicides are by one of your own family members / spouse.
The NRA supports promotes the adgenda of it's major finacial contributors, which are firearm manufacturers, not firearm owners.Zachary Amaranth said:
Common-sense gun control does almost nothing, since those kinds of measures never include handguns, which account for roughly 80% of U.S homicides (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics). And even if all common-sense measures were enforced regarding sales and background checks, the fact that hand guns would still be legally available would mean that they would be siphoned into criminal organizations one way or another.Zachary Amaranth said:
The most surefire way to ensure a decrease in the homicide rates is to ban all guns. But, since the NRA is Washington's most powerful lobbying group, we can see that that won't happen any time soon. So the most important thing is a change in culture, especially among Republicans and NRA-backers, to draw away votes from that sector and make anti-gun candidates more popular.
That's not something that will easily be achieved and - according to Social Darwinism - a lot more of these massacres will have to take place before such a shift in culture is observed. However, given time, I am sure that will happen, because it increases the security of human survival.